Calling All Carnivores Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat: A Contest, A Summary, A Winner

As some of you may or may not be aware...The New York Times ran a contest for readers to tell them "Why it's ethical to eat meat" this thread
as the title indicates, will present The Contest, The Summary and finally, the Winner for the ATS community to provide a respond on.

Part 1 - The Contest;

Ethically speaking, vegetables get all the glory. In recent years, vegetarians — and to an even greater degree vegans, their hard-core inner
circle — have dominated the discussion about the ethics of eating. From the philosopher Peter Singer, whose 1975 volume “Animal Liberation”
galvanized an international movement, to the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer, who wrote the 2009 best seller “Eating Animals,” those who forswear
meat have made the case that what we eat is a crucial ethical decision. To be just, they say, we must put down our cheeseburgers and join their ranks.

In response, those who love meat have had surprisingly little to say. They say, of course, that, well, they love meat or that meat is deeply ingrained
in our habit or culture or cuisine or that it’s nutritious or that it’s just part of the natural order. Some of the more conscientious carnivores
have devoted themselves to enhancing the lives of livestock, by improving what those animals eat, how they live and how they are killed. But few have
tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake.

Is it ethical to eat meat? That short question, posed in these pages a few weeks ago, inspired a debate heated enough to roast a fatted calf (or a
really enormous zucchini, depending on your dietary orientation).

To encourage omnivores to do some of the same hard thinking that vegetarians and vegans have done, I invited them to make, in 600 words or fewer, the
strongest ethical case for the meat they eat. And to judge those arguments I gathered some of the strongest ethical critics of meat, or at least of
the way we consume it — Mark Bittman, Jonathan Safran Foer, Andrew Light, Michael Pollan and Peter Singer.
.’ ”

As a vegetarian who returned to meat-eating, I find the question “Is meat-eating ethical?” one that is in my head and heart constantly. The
reasons I became a vegetarian, then a vegan and then again a conscientious meat-eater were all ethical. The ethical reasons of why NOT to eat meat are
obvious: animals are raised and killed in cruel conditions; grain that could feed hungry people is fed to animals; the need for pasture fuels
deforestation; and by eating meat, one is implicated in the killing of a sentient being. Except for the last reason, however, none of these aspects of
eating meat are implicit in eating meat, yet they are exactly what make eating some meat unethical. Which leads to my main argument: eating meat
raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other circumstances is unethical. Just as eating vegetables, tofu or grain raised
in certain circumstances is ethical and those produced in other ways is unethical.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
If the animals did not want to be eaten they would evolve to taste nasty

and if we did stop eating meat how many cows etc would there be? not many
apart from zoos

Good thread S&F.

Do you agree with eating dolphins? they sure taste good don't they, perhaps, if humans were as delicious and nutritious as dolphins, we would be
eating each other and would have never evolved past primitive society

The fact that people evolved with a brain large enough to even grasp the concept of veganism and vegetarianism, or carnivorism for that matter, is
because our ancestors hunted and ate meat and got a lot of "quick" proteine that way.

We as humans, being an animal classified in the mammal category are natural meat eaters, if we were designed to be vegetarian we would have evolved
without canine teeth which are designed to rip and tear meat the same as any other animal with canine teeth

If a dolphin was caught in the nets and died, I think it is a waste not to use its meat for something (cat food maybe)
I knew a fishmonger in Preston who bought a Dolphin at smithfield market (it turned up with a load of tuna) and he cut it up into steaks and put its
head on a spike to advertise it, within 30 mins he had 50 people doing a sit down protest in his shop...he had to shut down 2 weeks later

.
Me? I would eat Dolphin if it was dead and put in front of me, Human? nah that is going to far, but don't they say that we developed our big brains
due to the fact we ate eachother thus getting plenty of protein to help our growing brain.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
If the animals did not want to be eaten they would evolve to taste nasty

and if we did stop eating meat how many cows etc would there be? not many
apart from zoos

Good thread S&F.

Do you agree with eating dolphins? they sure taste good don't they, perhaps, if humans were as delicious and nutritious as dolphins, we would be
eating each other and would have never evolved past primitive society

edit on 5-5-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)

Yes. The problem with any type of food eating whether it be a meat eater or vegetarian is the lack of personal contact with its food. No longer do the
majority people have to sow, take care of and harvest their vegetables, fruit and herbs. No longer do people have to hunt, kill, clean and butcher
their food either. Any self proclaimed vegetarian put into a different environment where they were living off what was around them would surely eat
meat if it was offered. I have met many vegetarians and the majority of them don't eat meat due to the misconceptions of animal fats and red meat and
as well because of the inhumane treatment of mass produced livestock.

I am a meat eater but i can tell you one thing, i love vegetables more than meat. Legumes are amazing source of protein compared to meat but there
will never be a true replacement of animal meats.

If a dolphin was caught in the nets and died, I think it is a waste not to use its meat for something (cat food maybe)
I knew a fishmonger in Preston who bought a Dolphin at smithfield market (it turned up with a load of tuna) and he cut it up into steaks and put its
head on a spike to advertise it, within 30 mins he had 50 people doing a sit down protest in his shop...he had to shut down 2 weeks later

.
Me? I would eat Dolphin if it was dead and put in front of me, Human? nah that is going to far, but don't they say that we developed our big brains
due to the fact we ate eachother thus getting plenty of protein to help our growing brain.

if you were given a dead human why not eat it? is it not unethical that the meat is going to waste?

Go ask a lion or a Polar bear what gives them the right to eat meat. Carnivores are everywhere in the food chain, so are herbivores. It's part of
life get over it, if you don't believe me, go ask the lion.

Everything... humans, plants, animals, elements, the sun.... it's all made of the same "stuff".
Whether we're talking about omnivorous, carnivorous, herbivorous, photosynthetic, chemosynthetic, nucleosynthetic, reactionary, fusion/fission....
some form of this "stuff" is used and converted into new forms of the same "stuff".

Mere energy consumption or conversion is not unethical, it's natural. It's the way in which humans sometimes carry it out that causes
unethicalities.

Not only food, but most people in the developed world don't have to worry about shelter or security either, it makes them terribly unhappy inside
since they have no real goals but to be a consumer and that is what all of our Western culture depends on

Personally I would eat anything to survive, but given the choice I would pay a price premium for free range or wild meat, our current lifestyle has
nothing to do with survival at all but there are plenty of people eating dolphins, cats, dogs and supporting poor ranching practices

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.